Appeal Number: 2007-0126
Application Number: 09/970,910
computer 74 commands video computer 36 to retrieve from a database
stored in CD ROM 44 or hard drive 38 video data of the
representative view (step 1322).
(Col. 12 line 67-col. 13 line 7).
Senga describes prioritizing exchanges as
The mediator roughly divides the bid-responding conditions into
commodity-related, purchase-related, and sales-related conditions and
gives them priorities in an descending amount order to the purchase
desired conditions, in an ascending amount order to the sales desired
conditions, and a time-lapsing order of the bid-responding time for the
same amounts so as to provide a transaction conclusion order . . .
(Para. 50).
We also note that the appellants indicate that such prioritization may be based
on order of receipt (Spec 34) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have known that the general default service policy of first-in first out (aka FIFO) is
just such a prioritization based on receipt.
Therefore, we find the appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive. Accordingly
we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 17, 25 and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakfoor, Walker, Peters and Senga.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013